Rus Articles Journal

response on lecture V. V. Goncharuk “Before and after Chernobyl“.

in general lecture very much was pleasant. Lecture can be watched on the channel culture of the « project; » academy; But I will try to describe vkration positive and negative sides. I will begin with positive. Apparently Vladislav Vladimirovich Goncharuk not just of people the scientist who is engaged in some narrow direction, and and comprehensively developed which is able not only to ottsenivat soberly a situation but also to place the correct emphases and conclusions. To me the scientist dealing with such extensive problem has to seems it to be. Than that its approach reminds Vernatsky`s approaches. Though, alas it as well as Vernatsky trying to embrace immensity in some questions floats, or just is not in time in details on them will stop. But it I will already be taken aback in negative sides. From a positive still it would be desirable to note that very important problem which is considered from the point of view of human health is touched, but not as it at us is accepted from a commerce position. The lecturer`s relation to the international relation to science mentioned in the first lecture is also pleasant. And as I understood the most important were carried out interesting research concerning isotopes, and the knowledge tensed by other scientists is also lit and structured. The fact that the lecturer stops on science profanator was still very important: water purification by filters, memory of water, etc. nonsense. On the one hand it would be possible to tell that not this nonsense does not cost attention, but alas, many inhabitants still trust a yellow press and different fairy tales allowing to make a fool of themselves therefore I consider that I a mention of the matters was not simply important, but also is necessary. For what of course separate plus. Now I will smoothly pass to shortcomings. Likely one of shortcomings is what the author as I already wrote touched upon very extensive subject. And despite all the skill, though managed to reveal her, but in my opinion missed important points. Exactly focusing attention on these moments at me personally there is also a mass of tricky questions.
the Question 1 - whether was heard by the author about gnotobiotichesky animals? Whether he overestimates a microflora role. Honestly this question torments me for a long time and concerns not only to Goncharuk. But time it not once on is mute stopped that I think it would be worth giving examples of researches. For example: death of animals or their diseases in lack of a biota. But existence of animals without flora speaks about the return. Of course I think not who will not argue concerning the fact that certain microorganisms purify water, by the way just from - for what they mutated and they had certain enzymes for splitting as some toxic difficult molecules and extermination of the competitors. But the fact that the child should be nursed as long as possible in order that the biota of mother began to develop also at him. Quite doubtful statement. Especially phrase “as long as possible“. Not, of course it is clear that it is pleasant to women to nurse. Let feed - some people feed till 10 - 15 years. but not really 10 years are necessary that bacteria lodged at the child in intestines. I think, for them and there will be enough few months. And bacteria on are ubiquitous so much that such feeding long exactly is doubtful. And if the author of lecture raised the matter twice, I advise it will examine in more detail concerning other question which is opposite to microflora but is closely connected with feeding and immunity. Namely concerning colostrum and kolostralny immunity. But for it it is enough literally days after the birth, then acidity destroys immunoglobulins. But it is already other subject.
the Question 2 Following Statement which, to put it mildly, shook me is that anaerobe bacterias are harmless... Of course for example: such “harmless“ anaerobe bacteria as botulism or tetanus)).
Question 3. What nevertheless in the way the mutated microorganisms cause mutations in a human body? No, of course I agree that many viruses are mutagens, but for this purpose it is not obligatory for them to mutate. Though on the other hand a set of microorganisms constantly mutate as under the influence of anthropogenous factors (any, not only dirty water), and under the influence of natural. Life at them such to mutate and adapt. Nevertheless, I do not see regularity between a mutation of microbes and developing of cancer. Maybe the author of lecture on told concerning some concrete researches which indicate this regularity. At least logical I see obvious no reason for this assumption even if the researches proving this strange dependence were conducted.
Can matter in the chlorine? But not in fungi. It just that can also cause mutations in an organism. too not everything is so unambiguous
concerning blood. Frankly speaking, some researches quite primitive. Can do this, some to a noukha to investigate a genome by quantity of kernels in blood cells. Especially it was not even specified what cages. Can leukocytes)) - palochkoyaderny, segmentoyaderny or macrophages. Since kernels in erythrocytes of the person are hardly analyzed. If there is a speech concerning erythrocytes of fishes, then it should be specified in lecture. So it is possible to frighten by these pictures only inhabitants. No, I agree that the problem of pollution of water is extremely important and really leads to quite powerful negative consequences. But judging from a blood test, a conclusion arises that researches whether were not, whether authors of researches do not know what is blood.
But it is questions which arose at me as the person familiar with biology. Concerning chemistry and physics too not all is clear, but I will refrain from remarks.
Though as were correctly noticed the friend by the audience information about Tesla and the Tungus meteorite is doubtful, and you should not have mentioned it in lecture in the context of the proved information. And experiences with magnets and influence of this absolutely not considerable field on blood from the category the fable about water. If these researches took place to be, then it was necessary to prove them in more detail. Once again I will emphasize
that in general I adhere to the author`s views especially concerning uselessness of use of filters, nevertheless and remained to me its relation to UF and banal distillation is unclear. The missing elements Mg, Ca, etc. it seems to me it is possible to receive also from food. And on the fact that if to leave water in order that the organic chemistry departed. And as the author speaks this organic chemistry will get into lungs and to write a bigger harm, too is very farfetched. Can just put water with the covered gauze on a balcony. Time you so are afraid of organic chemistry?
I one more organizational remark is that lecture, is for some reason called “ Before and after Chernobyl “ though subject in it wider. But it not the critical remark since nevertheless the main essence of lecture turns around radiation pollution and its consequences. But I think equally well it would be possible to call the lecture - water purification, or that that like that. It would be also fair and interest in this subject is not one many less.